Re: Wordless language (WAS: NonVerbal Conlang?)

Hi!

And Rosta writes:
>...
> That sounds like Jonathan's ("T4"?). In parts it also sounds very
> similar to Livagian, but in Livagian there is (for purposes of
> concision) rampant mismatch between morphology-phonology on the one
> hand and semantics-syntax on the other.
>
> I suppose it is pertinent to remark that one could without difficult
> design a conlang in which there was perfect homology between
> morphophonology and syntax, and only a single, uninflected, class of
> content words, plus various uninflected function words. -- Not a
> particularly groundbreaking idea, but it constitutes, I believe, the
> maximum degree of simplicity that conlangers have so far managed to
> conceive.
This is the design principle of Tyl Sjok.  However, there is a wide
range of possibilities for a concrete design.  I sincerely doubt that
Tyl Sjok's second goal of being maximally pro-drop and thus almost
maximally ambiguous would be felt to be 'good' design by many
conlangers who use the design principle you describe.  You could make
such a language unambiguous easily by disallowing particles and
pronouns to be dropped.

**Henrik